October 3, 2012

AM I THE ONLY ONE OF THE INSTAPUNDIT BLOGGERS AND GUEST-BLOGGERS who loathes the Daily Caller’s exploitation of the 2007 video of Barack Obama stirring up the black churchfolk? I don’t think this is helping Mitt Romney with the swing voters at all. Like last week’s playing and replaying of the Obamaphone lady’s ravings, it repels me from Republicans. I’m a swing voter — I voted for Obama in 2008 and Bush in 2004 — and I am genuinely undecided this year. Those of you who are pleased with these seemingly exciting new weapons to use in the fight to defeat Obama are losing perspective. You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince. Here’s a clue: You look ugly.

716 comments:

Thanks, Ann. Like you I voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. Unlike you, I'm decided enough this year to know I won't be voting for Obama again. But this stuff makes my stomach knot. Maybe not enough to consider voting for Obama. But maybe enough to consider not voting for Romney.

You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince. Here’s a clue: You look ugly

That's actually funny.

Funny in that an educated, adult woman simply can not engage in the substance of Obama's remarks - note that a sitting Senator lied about the Federal Government's response to the Hurricane - so she will go with it's so ugly!

It is funny, yet tragic.

What is also tragic is you can't seem to understand this is also a criticism of the media.

Since Romney is going to lose, what's wrong with Obama detractors having some fun mocking him and his policies and his worldview. This stuff only repels you because you thought Obama was a practical, thoughtful guy, even if he was center-left. But he's just a liberal, and will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

The more interesting issue is what has Obama done to help black people he claims the federal government discriminates against. The answer is nothing. He's incompetent across the board.

I certainly don't have that reaction, but I'm not a swing voter and in any event, I don't find Black racists particularly shocking.

On the other hand, you're probably right -- many White swing voters will be very uncomfortable with images that make individual Blacks look stupid (Obamaphone lady) or hateful (the audience for Obama's race-baiting video). Those are things the average White American would probably prefer to avert his eyes from.

Given all the evidence, one way or the other, actually having anything to with Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, what Rush Limbaugh or the Daily Caller/Sean Hannity have done can't possibly be a significant factor.

Perhaps if re-voting for Obama makes your 2008 vote more logical, you have chosen a very thin justification.

NOT THIS AGAIN. Seriously, you are not going to vote for Romney because of a video tape of Obama's speech in 2007? How the hell are you blaming this on Romney. Did Romney magically push words into Obama's mouth??

Ann, you may be a swing voter, but if you are truly undecided this time around I find that stunning and more than a little scary.

What in particular are you objecting to in the video that the DC/Fox showed? The message I got was that the media once again cut corners on the reporting aspect of his 'unscripted' remarks that are by any normal measure inflammatory (on top of being flat out lies).

If we look ugly to the people we're trying to convince, by using candidate Obama's complete video, then those people weren't waiting for a reason NOT to vote for Obama.

You know, Althouse, I'd love to have a quiet private conversation (not a public back and forth in a comments section) about your attitudes on race, and where they come from.

On other topics, you're a very logical thinker with a brilliant mind. On topics related to race, you become entirely driven by emotion and you overcompensate in your protectiveness of...not minorities in general, but of African Americans in particular.

It makes me think this is the result of some deep psychic wound. It makes me want to reach out to you and grant you absolution for whatever it is that you feel so damned guilty about.

Self-examination of our own reasoning has always been a classic Althouse theme. I wonder if you're capable of it yourself, with respect to this topic.

Why do you think you feel the way you do about race? Why do you think the Republican's efforts to show Obama as a race-divider are ugly, when very few others here see it that way?

Really, Ann? I enjoy disagreeing with people I respect, but how you can make a statement like that and retain my respect is something I am going to have to struggle with.

I'm sorry if trumpeting video evidence of the kind of character you voted for in 2008 makes us look "ugly." Undoubtedly this is because of your moral superiority regarding the race issue, as you referenced with the Obama phone lady.

Conservatives pushed the Obama phone video to show how DEPENDENT Obama's people are, not how BLACK they are. And the New Orleans video is direct contravention of the "Reverend Who?" speech that suckered you and the other suckers.

Yes, there's something ugly here all right. And I suspect is it in the mind of someone who is utterly unable to get past race in this country, and see to this man and his supporters for what they are.

After all of the thug tactics in Wisconsin, repeated nationally, and you remain "undecided." I see. Got it.

I can respect that you voted your heart in 08....but if you truly are " genuinely undecided this year"...there's nothing much I can do to help your thought process. There is now a track record. You go right ahead and look "thoughtful" as you try to decide and i will continue to look "ugly".

Look, we can agree that there is a right way and a wrong way to play that video. But, why is the content of that video off limits? People voted for the President because of what they wanted him to be. The fact is that he was NOT what they wanted him to be. This video is simply proof of that. And has not governed like it either. You cannot square the post-racial 'president of everyone' with 20 years in Wright's church and nominating Eric Holder. Again, that video simply connects the dots. And it is not racist to, you know, quote someone accurately.

The vision Obama sold for himself, the vision that swing voters wanted to believe in, was fraudulent. And that's before you ever get to the trainwreck of policy idesas and Obama's Chicago style authoritarian streak.

If you vote for Obama because conservatives make you feel icky, then policy is not a high priority to you. And yes, its another reason we are well and truly F'd as a nation it would seem.

What conservative media figures do to damage Obama makes squeamish independents like AA inclined to support Obama. What about what the entire liberal media establishment has done to (1) tear down Romney's candidacy and (2) provide all-important "context" for all of Obama's missteps? Does that not turn you off to Obama's candidacy and make you inclined to support Romney, AA?

If you are already firmly against Obama and you reflexively reject what I am saying, will you at least contemplate whether you are in denial?

What's the point of saying again and again that people who support Obama are wrong? If you can't put yourself in the minds of the people who don't agree with you, you have no way to speak to them. You are simply choosing to forgo the possibility of being persuasive.

You condemn others as emotional/irrational, but take a minute to consider how emotional and irrational it is to engage in politics without trying to get more people to agree with you.

Why not go find something else to do? Why do you bother? You're beating your head against the wall and I'm showing you where there are doors, and you're claiming it makes sense to try to exit through the wall. And preening about your rationality.

On other topics, you're a very logical thinker with a brilliant mind. On topics related to race, you become entirely driven by emotion and you overcompensate in your protectiveness of...not minorities in general, but of African Americans in particular.

It makes me think this is the result of some deep psychic wound. It makes me want to reach out to you and grant you absolution for whatever it is that you feel so damned guilty about.

I think lots of Whites feel that way. I don't think Althouse is particularly unique in that regard.

However, I should add, anything that distracts from the focus on the economy is a net plus for Obama. Making this about race distracts from the economy. Bringing to mind--rightly or wrongly--issues of racial division is a net plus for Obama.

The video might be a great gotcha, but it's falling right into the trap of 2008 campaign themes. Which, we all know, the Republicans lost.

Everyone is being hit by the economy for the most part. The economy is precisely what Democrats don't want to talk about. It's precisely what Republicans at every step need to talk about.

Obama's place in history is informed by videos like this, but I have to agree that obsessing over videos like this ultimately hurts this present campaign.

AM I THE ONLY ONE OF THE INSTAPUNDIT BLOGGERS AND GUEST-BLOGGERS who loathes the Daily Caller’s exploitation of the 2007 video of Barack Obama stirring up the black churchfolk? I don’t think this is helping Mitt Romney with the swing voters at all. Like last week’s playing and replaying of the Obamaphone lady’s ravings, it repels me from Republicans. I’m a swing voter — I voted for Obama in 2008 and Bush in 2004 — and I am genuinely undecided this year. Those of you who are pleased with these seemingly exciting new weapons to use in the fight to defeat Obama are losing perspective. You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince. Here’s a clue: You look ugly.

Posted at 12:31 pm by Ann Althouse

OBAMA’S CHANNELING OF AL SHARPTON IS “OLD NEWS” TO PROGRESSIVES: Progressives and liberals in the mainstream media are scrambling to dismiss the significance of the video released yesterday by the Daily Caller, showing then-candidate Obama channeling his inner Al Sharpton. James Rainey at the LA Times concludes:

With the release of the video this week, some of Obama’s familiar enemies want to relitigate his old relationships. They want to reopen the question of whether the president is someone Americans really don’t know. Maybe voters can’t wait for a second trial on the president’s sentiments on race. But it’s more likely the only ones who will be listening will be the ones who already condemned him the first time around.

As I stated in an earlier post, this is a revelation to many people who voted for Obama because they thought (wrongly, as it turned out) he represented a post-racial America. It is most emphatically not merely the ones who “already condemned him the first time around.” People wanted hope and change– many of them have now lost hope and realize the “change” Obama wants apparently applies only to white folks, whom he sees as fundamentally racist. This is not the post-racial man that most well meaning Americans thought they voted for.

Posted at 12:26 pm by Elizabeth Price Foley

A J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS FOLLOWUP TO THAT DAILY CALLER VIDEO: More Race Incitement in Obama Speeches from 2007. It’s like that whole “post-racial” thing was just a scam or something.

UPDATE: If this is “old news,” as some are saying (see Elizabeth’s post just above) then it raises two questions: (1) Why is the backlash so desperate, then? and (2) Does Obama seem less angry or divisive today than he did before being elected?

Posted at 12:23 pm by Glenn Reynolds

Obama considers you a racist, Ms. Althouse. Not because of anything you've said or done, but because of the color of your skin.

And you are still considering giving him your vote.

Congratulations on your ability to handle cognitive dissonance without injury.

The problem with Republicans is that when they're winning the argument (the economy), they change the subject (the post-racial sideshow).

Romney should simply ask the president from whence all of the good natured bipartisanship will come from after Nov. 6th, and how can we possibly expect anything other than gridlock over the next four years if he's reelected? Another "reset?"

Frankly, if we can't convince people to vote in a direction based on recent foreign policy events and the economy, I seriously doubt a speech from years ago will sway people. I doubt anyone is saying: "Well, I thought that 8+% unemployment and F&F thing were OK, but that speech was a bit mean. Totes Romney at the voting booth."

The video's a distraction, however fun it is to point out the factual inaccuracies and hypocrisy (like the utter abandonment of red states impacted by natural disasters under Obama.)

Ann, are you voting with your lady parts again? Because you are not using your brain, that's for sure. Tucker Carlson digs out a vid of Obama being the quintessence of Obama, and it makes you feel squishy and uncomfortable and you think it makes Mitt Romney look ugly?

Why is it that the left -- and here I include you, Ann -- feels so uncomfortable with Obama as Obama, that it keeps feeling he needs protection and help in order to win, because he's the underdog, right? All this insecurity about Obama, they're still giving him affirmative action full time.

Those of you who are pleased with these seemingly exciting new weapons to use in the fight to defeat Obama are losing perspective. You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince. Here’s a clue: You look ugly.

Also, since Obama will be re-elected despite his incompetence and a horrible economy, a lot of people like Ann will have voted for him because of the soft bigotry of low expectations for the black guy. We can't fire the black guy. If he were white, we'd fire him. But we hired him, and and we can't fire him, because we'd feel guilty about firing the black guy. If he were a white guy, though, we'd fire him.

Why not go find something else to do? Why do you bother? You're beating your head against the wall and I'm showing you where there are doors, and you're claiming it makes sense to try to exit through the wall. And preening about your rationality.

You like that verb, "preen". I like to engage in discussion, even when the hostess is bizarre sometimes. I'm on my way out, though. You seem to be going the way of Andrew Sullivan.

How is playing a video of Obama's own words reflect poorly on Republicans? The Obama supporters use any all tactics against us and were supposed to take the high road and lose like gentlemen? McCain tried that.

What you find "ugly" is that you were fooled by a charlatan and you don't like being reminded of it. You fancy yourself as a smart professor type and you fell for a scam. If after these 4 years of failure you are still unsure of who to vote for I don't know what anyone can do to convince you.

Why anyone in the Conservative blogosphere deals with you I have no idea.

You, a very smart person, knowing the way this country is headed right now are "genuinely undecided?" Sheesh, not that you care but what a disappointment this is to hear. The man you voted for in 2008 is an abject failure and you are still on the fence? Exploring liberal emotions instead of just looking at the facts. Please, just put us all out of our misery and vote for the man.

That said, how this video of Barry being Barry hurts Romney I can't imagine. At least not with people who can make up their fricken mind, which I believe most people have no matter what the polls say. And I say that because you're a prime example. I think you have made up your mind, but for whatever reason, maybe to keep things interesting here or what I don't know, you don't want to admit it.

If you can't put yourself in the minds of the people who don't agree with you, you have no way to speak to them. You are simply choosing to forgo the possibility of being persuasive.

But so are you.

You've decided this is ugly, and other people should see it your way if they want your vote.You aren't doing anything to understand why people- good, non-racist people- are interested in this and find it worth releasing publicly.

What is your way to speak to them? As far as I can tell, it's "shut up!".

If you are still undecided, your readers deserve to be told exactly what it is about Obama and his administration that you find so attractive. Besides the color of his skin, that is.

As a professor of law, you should be ashamed of yourself for even implicitly supporting the administration that operated Fast and Furious.

Personally, I believe you are a racist - as in "reverse racist." You would never even consider voting for a caucasian whose administration was involved in an equivalent of Fast and Furious or the Black Panthers voter suppression and violence during the election of 2008.

Tell us where you draw the line, Ann. If Fast and Furious, Benghazi, over $700 billion in crony capitalism, etc., etc. won't get you to disavow Obama, tell us what will.

Why not go find something else to do? Why do you bother? You're beating your head against the wall and I'm showing you where there are doors, and you're claiming it makes sense to try to exit through the wall. And preening about your rationality.

Are there doors that would allow Obama's opponents to show that he's a race-baiter without it backfiring? Honestly, I don't think racial relations between Blacks and Whites have advanced far enough in the US for that kind of frankness to be possible.

This is the typical guilt trip of liberals -- if you oppose Obama in any way you must be a racist.

No matter that this clip should be of greatest concern to middle and low income blacks who are most hit by the bad economy and have been largely ignored by Obama, except for increasing the use of food stamps and the free phones. Those struggling to get on their feet aught to be seriously considering if Romney would do more to improve the economy.

I'm not so sure the commenter isn't a moby anyway. When I showed my wife, far more liberal the me, the graph showing the huge increase in warrantless electonic surveillance activities under Obama, she said that couldn't be true because she was just sure Obama stopped that program the minute he took office.

If there is such a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of democrats on Obama's history, then revealing his past using his own words can only have a good effect on those people.

Like maggie2, watching this video made my stomach knot. Unlike maggie2, it was the contents of the video that made my stomach knot.

Skip the racial component completely. What about the health of our constitutional republic?You teach law right? Which laws are you gonna teach? The ones relative to our republic? Or, the ones that get made up by this current administration as it chooses?

"Not only is Republican race-baiting a deeply immoral and destructive thing to do to this country, I don't think it's an electoral winner."

-- Republicans aren't the one on that video lying to their audience about how Bush is denying giving them money and not helping people in Africa with AIDS. See, playing the video is in poor taste, and I disagree with how the Caller and Drudge presented it. But claiming racist motives is silly.

Well, thanks for calling me ugly Ann, and here I'd just spent $7 at Amazon through the link on your page!

Obama's speech was ugly. I've heard no one try to defend it. All I've heard is that it's "old news". So the people who voted for Obama four years ago already knew he was a race-baiter, and voted for him anyway? I don't believe that. I know people who voted for Obama because they thought he would take us beyond racial divisiveness; they hadn't heard his shout-out to Rev. Wright, his unfounded accusations of racism in the handling of the damage that Katrina caused to New Orleans.

People shouldn't need to hear this old speech to know that Obama is no more post-racial than his mentor. He's been president for almost 4 years. But a few people who haven't been paying attention might learn something from this video.

Ann,This is not being emphsized enough. It goes to the root of one of the major problems in America today - the fact that blacks are shamelessly manipulated by Democratic and black politicians, to a greater extent than other demographics are by either party, and the majority of the media does not acknowledge it. The fact that meaningful numbers of voters actually feel guilty/sorry towards Obama when it is publicized (albeit five years too late) and are considering voting for him as a result, speaks to the brainwashing that has occurred when it comes to anything racial. That has had devastating consequences to our nation, ironically blacks are hit hardest of all by it.

I've been a long time reader of this blog and a very occasional commenter. I see this as a piece with some other maddening instances where Professor Althouse's social needs overrode her logic.

Does everyone remember when she went to the libertarian conference to speak and was driven to tears because everyone wanted to do away with affirmative action, but weren't prefixing every sentence with some disclaimer about liking people of color?

Does everyone remember how she would say that free speech was her number one priority and the next paragraph about how she voted for Russ Feingold because of his boyish charm? Apparently, boyish charm was her actual number one priority.

Now, she evidently doesn't want to be grouped with people she imagines are voting against President Obama because of his ethnicity instead of the thousands of more rational reasons to do so. And she wants a way out. Which is her right to prioritize in her voting preference however insane it might seem to an observer.

...like enablers in a dysfunctional family are made uncomfortable when someone else finally speaks up about the abuse.

You have to take people as you find them, not as you wish they were. If you want them to vote for your side, you have to be sensitive to their feelings. Doesn't matter whether they make sense or not. There are some hard truths that Republicans need to tell the public (e.g. "The money is going to run out!"). "Some Black People are Racist" is not one of them.

I file this kind of thing under Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. I don't think a Candidate is responsible for what his supporters do to try to sway the increasingly miniscule numbers of truly undecided.

And I don't care if people who support the same Candidate as I look ugly. That has no bearing on my incredible beauty.

I am simply amazed, Ann. An impartial and intelligent analysis of the Obama administration reveals a staggering amount of incompetence and/or corruption. Fast & Furious was bad enough, but now we have the preventable assassination of Ambassador Stevens. Yet you are genuinely undecided? Wow.As far as the 2007 video, there is no conservative overlord controlling what information is released to the public. That is a liberal thing. I hope the conservative side never reaches that point. I much prefer the free marketplace of occasionally "ugly" ideas over the liberal's all too common tendency to silence "ugly" speech by countering it not with reasoned argument, but instead saying "your opinion is not allowed! Why? It's ugly!"

I think the Obamaphone video is important because it shows how federal programs are being used to buy votes. There is no reason why the phone should be called "Obamaphones"--that is what they are really called (or at least were until the video came out). Obama didn't create the free cell phone program and, even if he did, his name should not be used in the marketing of the phones. I agree about the video of Obama speaking to the black ministers--I think there is nothing wrong with showing it but I think that all it shows is a politician pandering to his audience and nothing more.

I'm glad I spent my formative years living in a (very nice) public housing project with a lot of black people and therefore never developed white guilt and all its attendant neuroses and low expectations and incomprehensible double-binds. Growing up, black people were humans, like any other people. Until I was in my teenage years I never realized that there was any other mode of relating to black people.

I think the Obamaphone video is important because it shows how federal programs are being used to buy votes. There is no reason why the phone should be called "Obamaphones"--that is what they are really called (or at least were until the video came out). Obama didn't create the free cell phone program and, even if he did, his name should not be used in the marketing of the phones. I agree about the video of Obama speaking to the black ministers--I think there is nothing wrong with showing it but I think that all it shows is a politician pandering to his audience and nothing more.

Over 70% of blacks are born to single moms. That is up from 25% in 1965. So after 100 years of Jim Crow, one in four blacks is out of wedlock, but less than 50 years after the Great Society, it's past 70%.

The only thing destructive to society is this number, and it has nothing to do with showing videos of ignorant black people. Those videos didn't cause this 70% out-of-wedlock number. What greatly contributed to it is weak-kneed liberalism that cares more about the self-regard of upper class whites race guilt than the actual shit existence their policies have helped create for blacks.

Think of the issue this way, Ann. It's not Romney who is exploiting this video of Obama stirring up the stirralbe-up.

In my opinion, it's people sick of the double standard. However, if you are loath to associate yourself with ugly Romney voters, can you also say you are loath to associate yourself with ugly Obama ones? And where will that leave you come election day?

Your presumption is that at this stage of the game the campaigns should be concerned about the impact their actions have on the undecided voter. However, what if the campaigns realize that going after undecided voters is a worthless endeavor? What if they actually realize that to win this election, they need to energize their base? Furthermore, energize the people who felt disenfranchised by the current president - e.g. working class, white - so much as to note vote democractic but to vote against the president?

Instead of making your presumption, make mine. You will see that this video is "gorgeous". It not only lathers up the base but also might get the working class bitter clingers to actually vote this guy out.

He was sold as Racial Healer Man to convince those who are consumed by race and consumed with the idea that a wound exists that he could heal what ails ya. Many don't accept the premise. But even if you do, it is obviously not true that Obama is any kind of healer, even if you were foolish to believe it at the time.

Anyone who paid attention last time knows this. Many others apparently did not then or still do not know this. Althouse has realized that she now knows she was duped, and she thinks Drudging up past evidence is unfair.

I personally agree that this is overdone. A whole lotta nothing to me, but then I never believed the healer bullshit anyway. So it drives off some moderates who are looking for a reason to stay with Obama. If not this, it would be something else.

I don’t know if you are the only one, but your reaction to the real Obama, the unvarnished, genuine racist, socialist tells why you voted for him. You still seem to carry with you that overriding romanticized view of him that you personally created and that has nearly nothing to do with him.

To call this exploitation is to attempt to disqualify his very words, expressions and deceit. Think of it this way: he has just been impeached by his own admissions and conduct and you are arguing to the jury that it is just so unfair and so, well, ugly for anyone to impeach your not so lovely witness. Good luck with that.

Sadly, you appear far too partisan in this exchange. But, you did vote for him. Even the unvarnished one.

And this: Professor, you state that you are 'undecided' about who to vote for this time.

Why?

Are you and Meade so financially well-off that 4 years of bad economic times haven't affected you?

Are you so out-of-the-loop to the Obama administrations actions - and his lies - that you are unaware of them?

His bowing to foreign leaders.Not prosecuting the New Black Panther Party for voter suppression.Firing an IG in violation of Federal law.The damage Obamacare is going to do to the U.S. budget.His too numerous to list Executive Orders used to bypass Congress.

Heck, the lies about Benghazi are enough to vote against him.

And what about his claim that people shouldn't "allowed" to 'slander' Islam while he says NOTHING about the near constant insults to Christianity?

You, as a law professor, should be up in arms about his statements against our First Amendment rights.

Either you've been trolling your own site the past 10 days or your thought processes aren't as complex or as deep as I assumed from your posts.

I had a similar first reaction. Couldn't believe that conservatives actually consented to go off message, and highlight something that will fire up Obama voters.

Overnight I decided that I was more bothered by a presidential candidate lying and telling a black audience that the federal government doesn't care about hurricane victims. The substance is horrendous and that overrides the political chicanery aspects.

Rush is having a field day with this today. Doesn't sound too ugly to me. Spoken as someone who has already cast a ballot, and not for Romney. Try to imagine the scorn people who choose not to play the "undecided" game must have for you and your ilk.

Well, then, I hope you enjoy the: (1) Affordable Care Act taxes when they start kicking in next year; (2) the Dodd-Frank can of worms that does nothing to cure the derivatives mess, but only provides cover for the bankers which means another banking "crisis" down the road; (3) the unresolved mortgage mess - oh, the bankers got theirs, but the mortgagees have yet to be helped; (4) the Stimulus, uh-huh, the only stimulating done was to Obama's cronies; (5) the new culture of "openess"... haw, haw, haw! This is the most secretive administration ever!

Swing voter, aka a spineless sheep that follows a whim, the crowd or a Ouija board, if that, even.

Fine then: Ignore all those broken Obama promises. Ignore all the lawless Executive Orders that circumvent Congress and rule directly against the will of the people. Ignore four years of economic wreckage.

Oh pooh! You found your cynosure of 2008 - and more importantly, minions of his minions - is a racist and you think you aren't. Cognitive dissonance, denial, anger. You are in a white heat of fury, and blaming the fire department.

If showing Obama doing a speech is making us look Ugly, voting for him makes you look stupid. Or do you want four more years with:More dead ambassadors

More coverups

More guns smuggled to Mexico, Central and South America to kill teenagers.

More flouting of US laws and putting the American Taxpayer on the hook for court costs.

More loans to companies going bankrupt.

If just those few things are not enough to show you voting for Obama a second time is the height of stupidity, and a video of him being a racist jack ass is enough for you to vote for him you need to take a good look in the mirror.

>>If you are already firmly against Obama and you reflexively reject what I am saying, will you at least contemplate whether you are in denial?<<

I don't think the folks who don't appreciate being called "ugly" are the ones in denial. Check out a mirror and get back to us on that. You got fooled in 2008. Turns out even worse than you had thought prior to this. That's on you; not on the folks who already knew what a piece of garbage this guy was.

Try as I might (and I've really tried) I am unable to put myself in the mindset of the swing voter who sees racism in the general conservative's focus on the "Obamaphone" and the Obama 2007 videos. I need someone to explain to me in a straightforward way why some people find it is racist to use this 2 videos as a discussion topic about Obamas failings. I'm being honest here. I'm not trying to be dismissive. I really want to understand the thought process.

Saying Ann helped layoff many people at U of Wisconsin, gave the wife of one of the women (it being Madison and all) cancer..and was a felon who committed violent cruelty on a gay dog by holding it down and giving it a haircut...well, THAT would be ugly.

Add to that if U of Wisconsin and Madison media conspired to label anything that came out of Anns mouth an "irresponsible gaffe" when she wasn't giving laid off campus workers spouses cancer...well, that would be UGLY!!

Add to that Althouse would be accused of a war on "gentleman's parts". THAT'S UGLY.

So what if her Boyfriend talks to a 100% black audience about "Our People" in a way that would forever brand a white who said it to a 100% white audience as a obvious racist who MUST APOLOGIZE!!Althouse thinks the media needs to suppress that sort of info about Obama, lest they appear ugly.

Do they get partial credit from excising those Obama remarks back in 2008 to conceal them from voters??

But the media is not reporting on Obama's true alter America to the third world socialist status which he does have as his goal.

I feel like I may have said this before, but I don't think Obama's "goals" really matter. He's incompetent at executing on them, so what he thinks is more or less irrelevant. The problem isn't Obama's goals, but the goals of the type of people who are put into power under his presidency. Many of them are experienced and competent at navigating the bureaucracy and the political process to install the policies they want.

Stop overthinking. Obama's a crap president and he's got to go. Fortunately most undecideds who see this aren't UWM law profs who grew up in NYC and will see beyond the race thing and understand this for what it is: people gaming the system, and politicians exploiting race to get elected.

It is a mystery: People clearlymore educated and more intelligentthan I am, probably more competentthan I was on the best day I everhad, who cannot distance themselvesemotionally from their daily liveslong enough to see that tomorrowmight be _different_.The world is past the point of noreturn on the way to a 2nd GreatDepression that will be worse thanthe first by the changed ratio ofurban to rural population.The presidential race is betweena man who may be able to minimizethe pain and one whose policy is to maximize it.You have never seen 'ugly', butyou will, soon; I hope you findcomfort in thinking you had goodintentions.

Wow, your post expressing concern over the "exploitation" of BO's 2007 speech is remarkable. Remarkable for the poor judgment you are displaying. I had to re-read it several times to convince myself it really came from you. As a formerly big fan, just very very disappointing.

Totally agree with Ann. Here is the thing I don't get: Obama has been a miserable president and there is ammunition to attack him just laying all over the place. The economy, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Benghazi. Why not attack him on these items of substance rather than dredging up old videos in which he talks about the need to cut red tape and bureaucracy? It's pathetic. Beyond how weak the line of attack is, as Ann notes, it also simply preaches to the choir. That is NOT what Romney needs to win. No one is going to change their mind because of that video. What might changes their mind, however, is an explanation of all the bad things Obama has done in present, why they are harmful, and what policy changes can be implemented to make things better. Obama talking in an affected accent that panders to his audience (which really, is no different than a politician dropping their g's when talking to a blue collar audience) is not the reason this country is struggling.

Folks,Ann is not going to engage you in a serious way. She will play with you. She will try to make you dance and run. But she will not come off her high perch (really just a eight by ten foot university office) and engage you Althouse Hillbillies in any meaningful discussion. Her psychy will just not allow her to do that with anyone, but especially not YOU!

I'd like to see you so a posting on how a woman as educated and obviously intelligent as you are could even think about voting for Obama again.

I'd like to hear how you rationalize the utter destruction to the economy and the American system that has been the hallmark of the Obama administration.

I'd like to understand how someone who teaches law could accept that Obama's complete and utter disdain for the Constitution and the American system of government is deserving of four more years in which to continue doing what he has done.

How can you look at the damage to America, the economy, the people, yes, dare I say it "the dream", that this man has caused and think that you still have to decide?

I suppose its possible that my assessment of you is wrong, that you don't think much of your country to begin with.

There are some hard truths that Republicans need to tell the public (e.g. "The money is going to run out!"). "Some Black People are Racist" is not one of them.

It's not? Really?

I disagree. I think that recognizing there are idiots and evil in every population is a critical part to not being a racist. Also, so long as the culture insists on burying ugly aspects of one sub-culture, those ugly aspects will continue -- and will get worse.

Also, Republicans trying to talk about Obama's speech intonation without knowing what code-switching is meander between ignorance and racism.

Code switching accents is highly disfavoured in the US. It's considered rude and disrespectful in almost all cases. There are still many people who instinctively do it. Growing up, we did it quite a lot in the home (also normal code-switching with languages, to a limited extent), but we understood it was bad manners to do it in public.

I agree about the video of Obama speaking to the black ministers--I think there is nothing wrong with showing it but I think that all it shows is a politician pandering to his audience and nothing more.

So it would be OK if a white Republican told lies to his audience in order to anger them?

Interesting that you seem to think that the placement of this is meant to move obama supporters. It's not. It's meant to show those undecideds some of the reality of the sitting President. Those things that were ignored or hidden during 2008.

Life isn't always pretty. If I look ugly for merely showing the facts that isn't my fault, but the one who can't be bothered with looking at the facts.

Did Althouse have little or no contact with African Americans during her formative years?

I'm betting it's something deeper than that. Maybe she had a crazy uncle who was a grand dragon in the Delaware chapter of the KKK. Maybe her family moved into a house after a black family was evicted from it.

Yeah let's all vote for Obama because conservatives showed a video of him where he lied about the federal monies spent on Katrina to inflame a black audience.

Meanwhile Reuters, which is not known for being on the right is reporting the Obama administration knew within hours that terrorists attacked the embassy and killed Stephens but went out for two weeks proclaiming it was a movie. Hillary Clinton blamed the video in front of the Ambassador's casket.

In addition actual black people are MUCH worse off due to Obama's policies.

I also think those thinking this video will help Romney, are not likely right.

But Ann, I certainly don't think the Romney support of folk whose actions you're disliking impeaches Romney as a candidate worthy of your attention. That would be ad hominem twice removed, which would be really weird. And it would also fail to account for the ludicrous attacks from progressives on Romney in comparison.

I'm not saying progressive scuminess warrants conservative scumminess. I'm saying that as you examine this particular datum that bothers you, you're obliged to weigh it in the balance with stuff on the other side.

Or not. Because ultimately, whether either side's proxies are capable of scuminess is not a good shibboleth of the candidates' ability to do what has to be done in the next four years.

Your expedient of saying you're on the fence is interesting, though. I think I understand why you're saying that, and no -- I don't believe for a minute that you mean it. ;-)

But what really bothers you isn't that it is ugly, but that you don't like seeing the video because you don't like how it makes you feel about yourself.

Last time around Obama was in serious trouble over his longstanding affiliation with Rev. Wright and his Church of Black Liberation/Hatin' on Whitey. So Obama's solution was to give a different speech. One you (and the media) could then latch onto to shore up your doubts about his character (or abject lack thereof.) People crowed about it like it was Lincoln's Second Inaugural (literally!)

Now this video, of another contemporaneous speech, one just as slick and manipulative but in an entirely contradictory manner comes along to remind you of just how badly you (and the media) chose to believe what you wanted to believe, and just how much you both are willing to ignore that which you don't want to hear about.

(Or are you willing to argue that this revelation wouldn't have been appropriate rebuttal even back during the first campaign?)

It might be ugly now, and it might even cost Romney your vote (as if he ever had it anyway.) But don't try to pretend that the real problem here is what it all says about anyone else. The real problem is what it tells you about why you voted for Obama in the first place. And what it says is that that vote was (and clearly remains) all about how you want to feel about yourself.

I may be wrong, but haven't you voted for only one Republican presidential candidate ever? I don't think that makes you a swing voter - as in "I'm so independent" - which by that you mean unbiased and intellectually superior to others who happen to have an opinion at this point.

This isn't just ugly, it's dumb. As racism goes, this is fairly mild, even if the speaker were white. A black man can say this and people won't even notice, except those who weren't going to vote for him anyway. For every person who is turned off by this, you are going to find one or two who will say, "Hey, why did New York get a waiver when New Orleans didn't?" These people don't need facts, they just want their suspicions validated. Meanwhile, the more we push the Obama Racism angle, the less credibility we will have for focusing on Fast & Furious, Libya, and Unemployment.

You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince.

Why should this be a consideration? The president is a racist. The woman with the Obamaphone is willing to sell her vote, and very probably her future well being, for a triviality offered by a pandering politician.

These are truths. They should be mentioned based on that merit and if the other side can successfully recast that as racism then so be it. That just provides another instance of sunlight on the Democrats and eventually enough black Americans will see that.

I fully expect Althouse to take her ball and go home. The not so subtle attempt to feign right and then to entice others to follow her over the cliff does not seem to be taking hold. Ugly - pretty well sums things up.

While I understand those of you who are taking Ann to task for HER perception of the video you are completely missing her point. Her point is that if you have a goal of seeing Romney elected then you must question whether the use of the 2007 Obama video helps or hinders your argument. My perspective is that she is probably right. The people you want to bring on board to actively support Romney may be being turned off by these repeated instances of criticisms that touch on race. It is completely unimportant whether these voters are right or wrong to come to these conclusions. You can't dictate their thought process only they can and they control the hand that pulls the voting lever. So, the question is for the low-information squishy middle voter who voted for Obama in 2008 is it better to focus on things like the economy and foreign policy OR go into these distractions like Obama phone and 2007 video that may turn them off. Stick to the point, please. I agree the future of America is at stake. And, I think feeling guilty white people are repulsed by anything that touches on race negatively in any way shape or form. What is more important: being right or winning?

Why has it always been true that condemnation of the Nazi's is okay, but condemnation of the Communists under Stalin is uncultured?Why does one side get a pass for its ugliness, but the other side is always called-out on it, when they make a similar response?Why do we give Obama a pass for his ugly statements, but cringe when someone else points out that ugliness?Is it our expectations? Do we expect one side to act intelligent and competent and cultured, but not the other side?And if we expect one side to be better, do we believe that they are? How does this affect (or not affect) the way we would vote?

If you think that the video of a speech that Obama gave is uglier than the lawlessness, economic destruction, and theft from future generations this administration has committed over the last four years and you represent a wide swath of "swing voters" in the US, this country is lost and beyond help.

many people voted for Obama hoping he would be "post-racial" and wasn't just another Al Sharpton type racial agitator. They thought that, largely, because the media helped craft an image of that. This video shows that image was complete bullshit.

As an Obama voter, Professor, you should be pissed that what you thought of Obama wasn't true and that you were lied to repeatedly. Obama isn't a healer of this nation. he's a fraud. vote accordingly.

Uglier than an actual campaign stating that Romney will steal your ladyparts? Ugly is as ugly does. I guess it's comparative ugliness -- one an absurdity from the actual campaign, and the other suppressed video evidence that Obama is not who they sold him as.

Though I don't fit into Althouse's "those of you" category, don't forget where she's coming from:

Althouse - this post comes across as an Anthony Kennedy sneer at John Roberts when the Chief Justice overtook the role of SCOTUS diva. How dare they!

You revel in your role as the squishy middle and rather than seeing the principled point being made regarding racial division, you choose to focus on the messenger.

During the Wisconsin fracas I visited your site, but after a while I realized your interest wasn't principled, but shallow - a what's in it for me moral code.

I'll tell you what's seriously ugly: someone clearly acknowledging the difference between right and wrong, but choosing wrong for personal profit. That's like knowing a murder will take place, but not taking any steps to stop it because the potential to play the death to your advantage is too great. And if that sounds like BHO's trump on Chris Stevens it's completely intentional.

Gerald, you mean the republicans should focus on the economy and foreign policy... like Obama is doing? Really? If that were good advice why aren't the democrats doing it? They are the smart ones, after all.

Interesting that you seem to think that the placement of this is meant to move obama supporters. It's not. It's meant to show those undecideds some of the reality of the sitting President. Those things that were ignored or hidden during 2008.

It's also intended -- expressly -- to show how dishonest the press was in their handling of it. They had reporters there -- and reported ONLY on the released text of the speech, not the "red meat" parts.

(A) We shouldn't look to elections as a vehicle for trying to fix racism in general. Leave that to ordinary social organizations, clubs, churches, whatever.

(B) Even if we wanted to talk about racism, there are more important, pressing issues right now.

Re: Frank Turk:

I mean: other than in a world ruled by post-modern ethics governed by feelings rather than facts which exist in places other than my own convoluted emotional landscape?

Modern America is a touchy feely place, and swing voters are some of the touchiest feeliest people. Althouse is unusual in that she's an extremely high-information swing voter. Most swing voters aren't going to dig into the narrative -- they'll get vague impressions this way or that, and vote on instinct and feeling.

Usually I find your analyses pretty thoughtful. This one, no. It's absurd to attack Romney supporters as "looking ugly" for the release of this video. The point is, this video should have been released unedited in 2008, when Obama made his "race speech" to quell the Jeremiah Wright flap.

If you would vote for Obama because conservatives released this tape, you are basically unserious in your voting criteria. Forget everything else and just think: Benghazi.

Usually I find your analyses pretty thoughtful. This one, no. It's absurd to attack Romney supporters as "looking ugly" for the release of this video. The point is, this video should have been released unedited in 2008, when Obama made his "race speech" to quell the Jeremiah Wright flap.

If you would vote for Obama because conservatives released this tape, you are basically unserious in your voting criteria. Forget everything else and just think: Benghazi.

Behavior that appears nonsensical or absurd or frightening reflects, like your own behavior, cultural assumptions. People who see posting the Obama videos as racist start from the assumption that color always matters. People who see posting the racist Obama video as a comment on O's character, start from the assumption that character matters, not color (re: MLK Jr).

Frankly, putting this complete video out is citizenship. In fact, Crack, it embodies the sort of truth-telling that you peddle as your stock in trade:

This is what the media gatekeepers thought you didn't need to see. This was a part of the candidate's worldview that was deliberately withheld from you. And, just perhaps, some of the events of the last four years are a logical outgrowth of the petty race hustling and outright lies of the miserable excuse for a man featured in this video.

As I said before, I don't care whether or not Althouse votes for Obama. Her single vote doesn't effect me. But should she do her small part to give Obama a second term, then she deserves whatever misfortune comes her way as a result.

John said. . .Gerald, you mean the republicans should focus on the economy and foreign policy... like Obama is doing? Really? If that were good advice why aren't the democrats doing it? They are the smart ones, after all.

I think the polling shows that Romney is winning both those arguments. Again, the REAL question is for low information squishy middle voters: Does this argument work for THEM or does it turn them off? That is the only question that matters. There is a goal. If it helps reach the goal, and is ethical (and I think that use of Obama's own words is ethical) then take that path. If it takes you away from the goal then abandon it. Pragmatism must rule the day. Ought has nothing to do with is even if it ought to.

Sean Hannity was manic last night, sputtering and spitting, which likely had exactly the opposite effect he intended.

The excuse I would offer for him and some of the others pushing this video so aggressively is the total frustration they must feel that the MSM absolutely refuses to hold the President accountable for seemingly anything.

I acknowledge the feeling that this exploitation of the tape is not helpful to the Romney campaign. I feel that way as well. However, I think the reason it is so "ugly" or uncomfortable or enraging to some is precisely the same reason we very foolishly elected Obama. And this is very troubling, indeed.

We can't have a reasoned conversation about race in America. We have gotten nowhere - at least as far as the generations that are voting are concerned. I do have great hope in my son's generation (just now of voting age) though. They impress me very much with their maturity and their ability to get beyond race. I hope I'm right.